My calorie goal hard to reach, any suggestions?

*off topic* I'm up for the marijuana legalization.. Always have been, used to smoke all the time in College, weird thing is, I was in awesome shape all through college, but when my wife got pregnant, I quit, because after college needed a job. I always enjoyed it after a day in the gym, helped me relax, and play music ;p. I'd rather smoke than take any kind of medicine if I could.

but back on topic. So when I drop to my weight of 195 or 185, if I maintain that weight, would I be able to build muscle, and get lean? if so, would I have to consume more calories and protein to get bigger (muscle wise)?

I'd go about 250 calories a day higher than maintenance with 6-12 rep range workouts. This way you"ll gain .5 lbs every weeks of mostly muscle. make sure its good carbs because you wont grow with crap ice cream carbs

Yup, it's official...I'm calling it: we're being trolled. This statement is so ridiculously unsupported by even the shakiest of evidence that there is no other possible explanation than troll.



(So, alright, man...you got me. Well-played. I'll now stop taking the bait and see how many others you can get to respond.)

*off topic* I'm up for the marijuana legalization.. Always have been, used to smoke all the time in College, weird thing is, I was in awesome shape all through college, but when my wife got pregnant, I quit, because after college needed a job. I always enjoyed it after a day in the gym, helped me relax, and play music ;p. I'd rather smoke than take any kind of medicine if I could.

but back on topic. So when I drop to my weight of 195 or 185, if I maintain that weight, would I be able to build muscle, and get lean? if so, would I have to consume more calories and protein to get bigger (muscle wise)?

As you are dropping weight, you obviously want to lift heavy and get plenty of protein to maintain LBM. Once you get around your goal weight, you could build muscle by doing a bulk, which would mean more calories and protein and lots of heavy weight. You would then have to do a cut to lose body fat and "lean out" as you put it, because in a bulk you gain muscle and fat. You could also do a body recomp where you eat around maintenance or while still lifting with the goal of retaining existing muscle and burning fat, but that can take a long time and won't necessarily get you to your goal of increased muscle mass.

Its cool just keep suggesting that people who are overweight can eat whatever they want and they'll get results as long they eat under maintenance calories.

Stop twisting people's words. You absolutely SHOULDN'T eat whatever you want to stay under your maintenance calories and lose weight. You SHOULD hit certain macronutrient, micronutrient, and fiber goals every day. Now in order to do that, most of the food you eat is going to end up being nutritious, minimally processed food, but you can ALSO eat processed food or other food that you enjoy in moderation and it actually HELPS you stay on your diet and prevents binges. It's a win-win situation. Also, bottom line, even if you threw macronutrients aside, it can be argued that it is healthier for those who are obese to eat WHATEVER they want as long as their losing their weight then for them to eat "healthy" but maintain their weight. Getting to a healthy weight is the most important thing.

Im not twisting any words, a calorie is a calorie correct? so i eat 250 calories less than my maintenance ill lose fat no matter what i eat? now im confused what you original statement was.

YES

coo imma eat crunch berries all day , time to get RIPPPED SON

HAHAHA you're either the absolute greatest troll I've ever seen or you're from the 80's and you time traveled to the present day, or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm really pulling for the time travel one...

(I took the Occam's Razor approach to this one, but I would be *thrilled* if I had to admit I was wrong and time travel was the real reason.)

Its cool just keep suggesting that people who are overweight can eat whatever they want and they'll get results as long they eat under maintenance calories.

I'm still losing eating "whatever I want" in a deficit. Of course whatever I want is done so with macros and (to a point) micros in mind as well.

in to learn how ice cream is the death of muscles.

Look guiz. I'm negating all ma gainz by eating this tiramisu ice cram after 10 pm. And after ma liftings.

Look guiz. I'm negating all ma gainz by eating this tiramisu ice cram after 10 pm. And after ma liftings.

This bowl looks big enough for me to swim in...

*dives head first into ice cream goodness*

Careful, Mirey. It'll go straight to your six pack

Peanuts and Dairy milk are my go to!

Look guiz. I'm negating all ma gainz by eating this tiramisu ice cram after 10 pm. And after ma liftings

This bowl looks big enough for me to swim in...

*dives head first into ice cream goodness*

Careful, Mirey. It'll go straight to your six pack

BUT! If I am eating over maintenance, it'll make em BIGGER!

I wanna get BULKEH

ETA: *swims another lap in ice cream goodness*

...I like the way you think! For muscles!!

Impossible.

I have it from a reputable source that you can't build muscle using ice cream carbs.

:laugh:

Nope, can't keep a straight face.

I knew this thread reminded me of something

80s broscience dude needs to read Sara's story - I think it fits well here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/903628-one-year-of-barbells-and-ice-cream-my-story-so-far-pics

You'll all get fatter eventually and 1 of every 2 of us will have heart problems due to our poor diets. so make fun now while you can

There are definite negatives to having a large calorie deficit. The greater the calorie deficit, the greater the muscle loss during weight loss. Also, the greater your metabolism wants to bridge the energy gap between calorie intake and calorie burn and will slow down if you sustain a large calorie deficit for a long period of time. Studies also show that with a large calorie deficit and faster weight loss, you're much much more likely to regain the weight and actually overshoot your original weight on the way up, mainly due to hormones that make you hungry when the body senses rapid weight loss and keep making you hungry even when you gain weight again...

I'm not here to debate. Your metabolism doesn't change significantly when you eat a large deficit. Everyone eating at a deficit will have a small decrease in metabolism, but it isn't exponential and it's temporary... so it's a non-factor. It absolutely does not matter. He's not starving himself so muscle loss won't be significantly if any different than if he was eating a few hundred more calories.

An individual is not a statistic. You can't point at someone and tell them that eating 1200 calories will definitely cause them to gain weight after they finish dieting. Something being statistically significant doesn't mean that it applies to everyone. Some people will have more success losing 2 lbs/week than 1/2 lb/week and vice versa. And don't use words like "much more likely" if you don't have the source. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2001.134/full here you will see that there is evidence against the idea of a VLCD hindering long term success of weight loss. While it is a popular idea and is often repeated, there isn't much research to back up the claim that VLCD is more likely to cause weight gain...while there is evidence against the claim.

Sidenote: OP isn't on a vlcd and I'm not advocating them...but I am disputing the notion that lower calorie diets are more harmful or won't work as well as eating a few hundred more calories.

Here's a quote from the conclusion section of the paper you linked to:

VLCDs and LCDs with an average intake between 400 and 800 kcal/d do not result in differences in body weight loss, as shown in some RCTs. Therefore, the pessimistic 1958 view of Stunkard and McLaren-Hume (1), that most patients will not lose weight, is no longer true. However, their statement that most patients regain their lost weight is still true. Although their are difficulties in comparing studies because of large variations in the design and control of study variables, the overall picture is still very negative. VLCD in combination with active follow-up treatment seems to be one of the better treatment modalities for long-term weight maintenance success. Carefully controlled studies, however, are needed to determine more precisely the role of VLCD or other dietary treatments such as LCD in the treatment of obesity. Questions such as the rate and level of initial weight loss, as well as gender differences on weight-maintenance success, need further attention.

The body is always working towards equilibrium. Everything we have seen in science shows the the universe prefers equilibrium and takes steps to get to it. You can't argue that a higher calorie deficit is superior to a lower calorie deficit because you've completely left out adaptive thermogenesis. Sorry for not providing links earlier, I will do that now:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/3/717.full.pdf+html

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/3/717.full.pdf+html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22846776

"However, their statement that most patients regain their lost weight is still true." What is the significance of this statement? It is also true for people who are on less calorie restrictive diets. 4/5 of all people on a diet are going to fail. Most will gain weight.

I never said that people on a VLCD are more successful or are less likely to gain weight. I said there isn't much difference between the two. Nobody is disputing that our bodies have homeostatic responses. You lose weight, ghrelin levels go up, leptin goes down, you eat and gain the weight back. Losing weight more slowly will make you feel more satiated, but there are obviously other factors that contribute heavily. A huge part of losing weight is psychological which is one reason why people who have bariatric surgery or are on a doctor supervised VLCD with therapy are much more successful than the general public. Only 1/5 of them regain weight.

Again, I'm not advocating one method over the other. Many people lose weight on a variety of different calorie restrictive diets. Some find one way easier than another. As I told OP...if he is getting enough nutrients in his 1200 calorie diet and he feels satisfied and not starving, then there should be no issue. 1200 isn't vlc and getting enough nutrients shouldn't be an issue. If it's not working for him, he can change it. Odds are, he will fail and need to change something anyway. Help people figure out what works for them and encourage them to modify instead of give up if it doesn't work out.

By the way, the first article you linked has a poor sample.

Check your sugar consumption, I find that if I eat more food that contain high amounts of sugar, like yogurt, protein shakes, fruits I tend to have a harder time fighting off the hunger. Try replacing any high sugar foods with proteins like eggs or high fats like avocados, and after good piece of salmon I am definitely not hungry. I have the same issue right now.

So shouldn't you be advising the OP to eat more sugary food since the issue isn't that they have a hard time fighting off hunger, but rather that they aren't hungry and need to eat more?

Encouraging someone to eat more sugary foods ? I just do not understand you MFP people

Is that what I was doing?

Ohai. I'm just here for the ice cream.